Polypan F

[baachitraka]

I see someone selling 90m of Polypan F for less then EUR 30. I have no idea about this film, except some samples here and there.

I have only one developer which is Rodinal. I am quite happy with APX and Fomapan but at this price it is quite tempting.

What are your experiences?

 

[Relayer]

don't buy it

 

[NB23]

I hated that film. Just plain horrible.
Out of the 400 ft I had, i used maybe 30 and then opened up the can and got done with it.

 

[baachitraka]

Would like to know the problems, if it is too contrasty I will go for Rodinal 1+100.

 

[pschauss]

I get decent results with it using Rodinal 1+50. I rated it at 100 and used a development time of 16 or 17 minutes. Contrast is a bit low compared to Plus-X or UN54 and it is a bit grainy. Flickr has a group devoted to this film and there have been some postings on rangefinderforum as well. From the samples that I see on Flickr is suspect that I could get better results than I have been getting if I were to spend some time getting this film dialed in.

 

[baachitraka]

I am little curious about those high-light glow in those samples, for me grain may not be a problem but I worry little about the scale of the film.

 

[eskil]

I would agree that this film needs fumbling around with to get good results. I use it for testing purpose since you can't beat the price.
But if you rate it at 25-50 and develop in Rodinal, you can get decent results. It's not for everyone obviously.

 

[przemur]

That's certainly not an everyday film.

But it's glow and general character could be still creatively used. Here is an example: http://a-propos-de-cracovie.tumblr.com/tagged/polypan-f

 

[Gerald C Koch]

The following would make me very wary of this film.

1. There is almost no information about it on the web.
2. No one knows anything about Polystar.
3. It does not appear to be a real still camera negative film becuase it is on a polyester base rather than an acetate base and there is no antihalation layer.
4. The name Polypan F 50 seems to be selected to confuse people into thinking that it is made by Ilford.
5. The size of the roll is too large to fit most bulk loaders and it isn't a cine film the perferations aren't correct.
6. There are no edge markings.

None of the dozen or so reviews of this film were very positive and the sample photos were awful. It seems to be a document or surveillance film of some type. What appears to be a good deal often isn't so good.

 

[Pinecreekboy]

It's an interesting film. It works well with Rodinal. I don't like the blooming that happens to the speculars because of the lack of the anti-halation coating. I bought a 300 ft roll and half of it fits in a Watson loader because the film is so thin. Someone on the Internet who claims knowledge of the film says it was designed for traffic cameras. I have no idea if he know what he's talking about but it's certainly a plausible notion. If someone wants 150 feet of it DM me and we'll work something out.

 

[piu58]

Polypan F ist thought to copy B/W movie films - in that sense it is a movie film. It has no antihaltion layer because you don't need one for copying films.
It is the cheapest sort of film that can be coated, and it tends to get contrasty. But that might be influenced by development.

In my younger days I experimented with a similar film because it was so extremly cheap. The results were not woth the effort.

 

[Murray Kelly]

There's pages and pages about it on the web.
The Polystar is conjecturally 'polyester'.
It is a movie print film and has no AH backing so use it with a camera that doesn't have a highly polished pressure plate.*
It seems to be the old Pan F coating, not the plus.
It is very popular with the Caffenol putsch. No problem pushing to 100 and in Diafine even more.
The sprocket holes are just perfect in spacing.
You have to get to live with the lack of edge markings and the bigger reel. What more do you want for that money?

Look at the Flickr site and see what can be done with it.

If you haven't tried it, don't knock it. Great for the frugal.

*And to kill the flare, should you have a problem, try covering the pressure plate with 120 backing paper. An instant cure.

 

[darkosaric]

I had good results with this film. It is not superb film, but it is good enough. I always use Rodinal 1+100 semi stand with polypan. Here are couple of examples (paper scans, fotokemika emaks grade 2, ilford multigrade developer):

Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed

Dead Link Removed

 

[Felinik]

don't buy it

Because?


/J.F. Felinik

 

[georg16nik]

Works for me, shot @50, developed in Rodinal 1+50, same way as I develop Ilford Pan F+
Here some scans from negatives, Plustek OpticFilm 7400 scanner: (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

In Europe, Polypan F is know as the industrial version of Ilford PanF (not +) using polyester base and as stated no annihilation.
The folks badmouthing Polypan F (without showing examples) might be holding the telescope from the broken side = using the wrong camera, lens, dark room....

 

[Relayer]

Because?

because!

Polypan 50@200 in MC-MEA
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5089/5259017068_e342ed947c_b_d.jpg

Polypan 50@200 in MC-MEA
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5281/5259019102_d2afa43e6f_b_d.jpg

Polypan 50@100 in D76d lazy-split 2bath
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5057/5525093615_05f2aa4c17_b_d.jpg

compared to other film I'm not happy with Polypan. now use it just only for camera test etc.

 

[georg16nik]

The spots? Does that show when using distilled water, cleaning the tank ever now and then?
Seen this? (there was a url link here which no longer exists)

because!

Polypan 50@200 in MC-MEA
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5089/5259017068_e342ed947c_b_d.jpg

Polypan 50@200 in MC-MEA
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5281/5259019102_d2afa43e6f_b_d.jpg

Polypan 50@100 in D76d lazy-split 2bath
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5057/5525093615_05f2aa4c17_b_d.jpg

compared to other film I'm not happy with Polypan. now use it just only for camera test etc.

 

[Relayer]

The spots?

The grain!

 

[georg16nik]

The grain!

According to Your notes the film was underexposed and there is no info on developing, just dev names, no times, temps, agitation, water (tap, filtered, deionized, distilled..etc)

The OP asked about this film Polypan F in Rodinal, so I still see it OK when developed in Rodinal.
I see that Darko used Rodinal as well, so I guess we are happy with the results and as Murray wrote

What more do you want for that money?

 

[Peter de Groot]

I am pretty happy with the film. Gives decent results for me. Just rate it at iso 50 or a bit less. Rodinal might give it a bit bigger grain but you try out a fine grain developer. You can't really go wrong for this price. If nothing else it is a nice film to test camera's with. The recommended developer is the same as for Ilford pan f.

 

[Simon R Galley]

We never made miniature copy film, it ain't PAN F or PAN F plus.

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology Limited :

 

[MartinP]

Possibly a re-packaged cine-print film from Filmotec? So perhaps specified by them to Innoviscoat for the actual production? We won't find out for sure - so just see if it is useful to you, from the many many examples on the web, and go from there. After all, it isn't claiming to be anything that it isn't (a rival to Delta3200, or some equally nutty claim) , though the marketing blurb is not very helpful admittedly. I can think that the Lomo people would love to use this, especially in that "cine" camera.

 

[Gerald C Koch]

I've always believed that the object of photography was to produce the best images possoble. I don't see how this can be done with a film that only produces "decent" results. It seems like this film is just a waste of valuable time and effort.

 

[Arctic amateur]

For some, the purpose is just to have fun.

 

[MartinP]

....